Targeted by Gun Nuts
After she wrote a gun-control op-ed, the writer got threats and worse: a blogosphere hit job on her murdered brother.

...

But when these gun-obsessed guys in their underwear talk to like-minded guys, they build a community that reinforces a level of intolerance that is off the charts. After all, the Internet doesn't create community. People create community — and how the Internet is used depends on the people who use it.

I'd spent a week in the company of people with closed minds and cold hearts. And what saddens me most is that vengeful intolerance is all too common and leads people every day to reach for a handgun to kill people.

...

I can cite statistics, and I can tell you why the right to carry a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with a 10-shot clip is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But the paranoia and bone-chilling hatred that spew from such sites as packing.org and freerepublic.com make for an equally — and unusually — effective argument for a ban on handguns.

Note how skillfully she maneuvers so as to preserve and enhance her status as victim.

That being said, one must also soberly note that whatever misbehavior our community engages in can indeed come to haunt us.

If you enjoyed reading about "LA Times Editorialist Responds To Online Fisking..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

bouis

August 13, 2006, 08:08 PM

Maybe she'll argue for repealing the 1st amendment next.

Combat-wombat

August 13, 2006, 08:16 PM

I just logged on to post this very article. I don't see how she think's it's acceptable to stereotype an entire, broad group over the actions of a few people.

Ieyasu

August 13, 2006, 08:22 PM

From the article:
And so began my strange, weeklong trip through chat rooms on such pro-gun websites as keepandbeararms.com freerepublic.com, packing.org
Not to nit-pick, but I don't think those sites have chat rooms.

I was not surprised by the insults directed at me. I'm familiar with the name-calling in gun control debates: "stupid," "beyond stupid," "liar," "criminal-coddling leftist scumbag," "Los Angeles coward
Is name-calling limited to, or worse in gun control debates? Not from what I've seen when the "libs" and "cons" mix it up. She should wander over to the Yahoo boards and see what trolls post on a wide variety of subjects. (All insults all the time)

That kind of behavior does seem universal on the 'net and its probably done by a minority of people, but it's sad to see, nonetheless.

HankB

August 13, 2006, 08:46 PM

Maybe the stories are true, maybe not . . . a couple of years ago, there was a minor scandal involving ARFs (Animal Rights Fanatic), in that some of their members were pushing a "stop hunting / shoot a sign" campaign, with the idea that if some ARF members started shooing up signs, hunters would be blamed and their image would be damaged in the eyes of the public.

So it wouldn't surprise me if, in an effort to gain sympathy, some antigun bigot sent this person some particularly vitriolic hate mail.

Oh, and to a lefty, "paranoia and bone-chilling hatred" can simply mean disagreement - especially when backed up by facts.

Hawkmoon

August 13, 2006, 09:26 PM

I can cite statistics, and I can tell you why the right to carry a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with a 10-shot clip is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But the paranoia and bone-chilling hatred that spew from such sites as packing.org and freerepublic.com make for an equally — and unusually — effective argument for a ban on handguns.
As to statistics, a long time ago someone wiser by far than I said about statistics: "Figures never lie, but liars always figure." Statistics can always be manipulated to support your side of any argument. All that's required is a modicum of intellectual dishonesty.

As to telling us why the right to carry a 9mm handun with a 10-shot clip [sic] is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment ... since I happen to have done considerable reaesearch culminating in my being absolutely convinced that the 2dn Amendment does, in fact, guarantee my right to own and carry about any weapon I can pick up ... I would be very interested to hear/see her argument. I'd probably also be alternately amused, bemused, and downright outraged.

longeyes

August 13, 2006, 09:27 PM

How did she know about my...underwear?

And she came through all of it still not getting the difference between magazine and clip.

I despair.

Look, hysteria is quite acceptable in the L.A. Times.

taliv

August 13, 2006, 09:32 PM

I just logged on to post this very article. I don't see how she think's it's acceptable to stereotype an entire, broad group over the actions of a few people.

Oh, and to a lefty, "paranoia and bone-chilling hatred" can simply mean disagreement - especially when backed up by facts.

glass houses

Standing Wolf

August 13, 2006, 09:47 PM

...one must also soberly note that whatever misbehavior our community engages in can indeed come to haunt us.

I could recite "Mary Had a Little Lamb," and the leftist extremists would find it threatening, then conclude law-abiding American citizens will be safe only when completely disarmed.

longeyes

August 13, 2006, 10:04 PM

Yes, Standing, but, let's be honest, it's the way you say it...:evil:

geekWithA.45

August 13, 2006, 10:07 PM

...one must also soberly note that whatever misbehavior our community engages in can indeed come to haunt us.

I could recite "Mary Had a Little Lamb," and the leftist extremists would find it threatening, then conclude law-abiding American citizens will be safe only when completely disarmed.

LOL to that.

But then I consider what your average Joe & Jane Normal "reasonable" people would think.

They'd not be threatened by you reciting Mary Had a Lamb ShishKebab following her around.

But when presented with this lady's central proposition, well...that's hard to call.

This woman follows a cluster of beliefs that is accepted by many folks who consider themselves "centrists" on the issue:

The premise is that sometimes, people who had heretofore been "good", do bad things, without notice or warning. Because the person who had snapped off and done something heinous could be ANYONE, it is therefore reasonable to suspect and treat EVERYONE as a murderer in waiting.

It's a chain of ill founded reasoning that a lot of people just can't see through.

Tossing the "boo hoo! The insensitive gun freaks were mean to me" play into the mix is the icing on the cake for her, and the sad bit is that segments of our own community handed her the ammo.

Thing is, that's unnavoidable. We scour the public utterances of our opponents for ammo, which they readily supply.

I'm just trying to remind us that it's a two edged sword.

the pistolero

August 13, 2006, 10:50 PM

I'm just trying to remind us that it's a two edged sword.

Indeed it is, and I've fallen into the trap before, I am ashamed to admit. I just get very, very angry when someone proposes to infringe on the natural rights of all the population based on the actions of a minute portion of it. I hate that this lady's brother was killed, I really do... but no kind of gun ban is going to bring him back, indeed, it might not even have saved him from being murdered. And between her grief and her warped mindset, I don't think she'll ever see that. I hate to sound so callous and cold, but things like this just really burn my tail. And were it not for Art's grandma, I would say where this lady can stick her statistics and her warped interpretation of the Second Amendment. Remember New Orleans, indeed...

The Guy

August 13, 2006, 11:26 PM

I have not been here long enough to know, but...

has there ever been someone like this liberal gal on The High Road and if so, how did we treat him/her.

I hope not with the name calling that she claimed to have recived by others on other sites. What I like about this place is the effort to keep things at least semi civil, as opposed to other places that were un-moderated messes.

Sad about her brother, but a knife in the middle of the night or poision in the "special meatloaf" would of had the same effect. Of course though, we all already recognise this.

Zundfolge

August 13, 2006, 11:41 PM

has there ever been someone like this liberal gal on The High Road and if so, how did we treat him/her.
There have been liberals/antis that showed up here and depending on how polite and honest they were they would get pretty good treatment.

THIS ONE is likely going to get much better treatment here than other parts of the pro-gun internet ... but she'd still get some of the poo throwers yelling "troll go home" at her.

Its a shame really. She appears 110% close minded and intolerant herself so she's going to elicit the worst of what THR has to offer.

Although I suspect that if she received 99 polite responses and 1 rude one she'd likely write in her little column about the bad reception she received here. I also bet that she encountered a lot of polite discorse on those forums but that doesn't push her agenda so she ignored them.

She's an operative of the antis ... she's not trying to have a civil discourse or honest debate of ideas (thats still no excuse for some of the "fisking" she received though. ESPECIALLY about her brother's death).

This is a reminder why we need to live up to the standards of The High Road whenever we can. No, its not going to matter with people like Ms. Price but those fence sitters who witness the debate can be pushed either way by our bullishness or by our politeness.

Low-Sci

August 14, 2006, 12:56 AM

"and I can tell you why the right to carry a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with a 10-shot clip is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment."

Well you can, but you'd be lying then wouldn't you. And show some mercy for the kittens.

Yeah, a lot of what she quoted was pretty negative for our side of things, but I can't help but believe that just like every other journalist, she got lots of responses and used the ones that suited her interests the best.

bigun15

August 14, 2006, 12:59 AM

I can cite statistics, and I can tell you why the right to carry a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with a 10-shot clip is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Either they made a 9mm that is clip-operated or...

SHE KILLED A KITTEN. SHAME SHAME SHAME.

Malone LaVeigh

August 14, 2006, 01:06 AM

Well, I don't doubt she got some pretty cretinous responses from freerepublic.com. Those nuts make me want to ban something.

MatthewVanitas

August 14, 2006, 02:19 AM

I can cite statistics, and I can tell you why the right to carry a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with a 10-shot clip is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

And a follow-up:
http://www.packing.org/community/general/listview/16537/page1/

I found nothing in packing.org about her prior to this...freerepublic is its usual mound of crap...but some good posts there too...even a broken clock is right twice per day, right?

I'd like to see all of these posts that she's written about.

RealGun

August 14, 2006, 09:27 AM

As to telling us why the right to carry a 9mm handun with a 10-shot clip [sic] is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment ... since I happen to have done considerable reaesearch culminating in my being absolutely convinced that the 2dn Amendment does, in fact, guarantee my right to own and carry about any weapon I can pick up ... I would be very interested to hear/see her argument. I'd probably also be alternately amused, bemused, and downright outraged.

The problem with her argument is that it's true. The US Constitution doesn't control handguns, because the courts won't allow it to do so. Furthermore, State's rightists, even gun owners, wouldn't welcome a different ruling, because they are still fighting the Civil War and defending the Republic.

Thefabulousfink

August 14, 2006, 01:02 PM

I can imagine that she got some very nasy and mean comments from some of the more outspoken and insensitive members of the gun comunity. There is really no need for that kind of action and I don't support it. However, those kind of responses can be expected from people when their civil rights are threatened, just look at the Black Panther movement.

The author of this editorial willfully attacked what many in this country believe to be our constitutionally protected rights. In doing so she made herself a target just as much as if she had said back in the 1960's that black people should be kept out of white schools and neighborhoods. After all, it is for the children.:barf:

JohnBT

August 14, 2006, 01:23 PM

"I could recite "Mary Had a Little Lamb," and the leftist extremists would find it threatening"

Dern tooting, they're companions, not pets, and certainly not livestock. Mary had no right to claim ownership of the that lamb or any other lamb. Now, if you said "Mary was a friend of the little lamb, its' fleece was white as snow..." ;)

JT

cavman

August 14, 2006, 01:28 PM

Regarding the Underwear:

"True" keyboard-commandos are most very likely going "Commando"!

Justin

August 14, 2006, 01:33 PM

Is this in regard to the article that she wrote in December of 2005?

Or did she write something more recent that I simply haven't been able to dig up?

If you enjoyed reading about "LA Times Editorialist Responds To Online Fisking..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!